"Is it not dishonest to own two teams within 1000 miles and pretend that you aren't? One agrees to the fair play guidelines, then takes two teams within 1000 miles. Is it not dishonest to purposefully violate the rules. Is it not defrauding other customers (and deceitful) when you gain advantage buy taking two teams within 1000 miles."

Oh, and who says I WASN'T outraged a year ago when the guidelines were updated? You have no idea, NONE, of the tickets I've sent, or of the conversations with CS I've had regarding that matter. Just because I didn't post anything in the forums then didn't mean I wasn't "outraged". I'll remember next time to run everything by you first, before I submit a ticket or anything else, so you can take note of how "outraged" I am about an issue. The reason I am posting now is because it has become a huge issue on the forums so this is where I feel like I need to express my opinions.

But enough about this for me. As I said in another thread, I voluntarily moved my D1 team far more than 1000 miles away from my D2 team, a move that I took the initiative to make to avoid getting told on by people who want to act like junior high hall monitors.

You can be emy1013 the liar or emy1013 the cheater. Liar if you really didn't send tickets to WIS when the change took effect, or cheater if you decided you didn't want to follow the rules. Actually you're a cheater either way.

I pay the same amount as everyone else for my teams (minus account credits) and I want to be on equal footing as everyone else.

Hughesjr--No offense, but that is the hypothetical of hypotheticals. I don't go after too many players just under the 360-mile limit, but it really doesn't occur to me to check in advance all the schools just under the 360-mile limit to see if they might go after a given player. Maybe the hyper-successful recruiters do stuff like that. Not me. And if a guy has two teams within 1,000 miles of one another, both acquired when it was OK to do so, he is not "pretending" by not announcing it to the world. He knows if he does, there will be someone looking for a pretext to rat him out.

Oh, and who says I WASN'T outraged a year ago when the guidelines were updated? You have no idea, NONE, of the tickets I've sent, or of the conversations with CS I've had regarding that matter. Just because I didn't post anything in the forums then didn't mean I wasn't "outraged". I'll remember next time to run everything by you first, before I submit a ticket or anything else, so you can take note of how "outraged" I am about an issue. The reason I am posting now is because it has become a huge issue on the forums so this is where I feel like I need to express my opinions.

But enough about this for me. As I said in another thread, I voluntarily moved my D1 team far more than 1000 miles away from my D2 team, a move that I took the initiative to make to avoid getting told on by people who want to act like junior high hall monitors.

You can be emy1013 the liar or emy1013 the cheater. Liar if you really didn't send tickets to WIS when the change took effect, or cheater if you decided you didn't want to follow the rules. Actually you're a cheater either way.

I pay the same amount as everyone else for my teams (minus account credits) and I want to be on equal footing as everyone else.

We're about to get into the same argument that we had almost 2 months ago now. You can get the same advantage in recruiting having 2 teams 5000 miles apart as having 2 teams 10 miles apart...you're on "equal footing". You don't understand how insignificant and arbitrary the 1000 mile rule is, and like emy said, collusion is a much bigger problem than potential FSS sharing, which can be/is LEGAL beyond 1000 miles.

You're lazy! You don't want to do any research yourself, you just want everyone to report their materials to you like they're turning in tests in a class. GTFO.

You calling emy a cheater with no basis or proof for that statement is insane.

Ironically enough, you're going after cheaters when you of all people tried to cheat in the MLB pitching contest that I ran in 2011, and you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm about ready to petition to get your McCarthy *** booted from the game for being a nuisance.

Oh, and who says I WASN'T outraged a year ago when the guidelines were updated? You have no idea, NONE, of the tickets I've sent, or of the conversations with CS I've had regarding that matter. Just because I didn't post anything in the forums then didn't mean I wasn't "outraged". I'll remember next time to run everything by you first, before I submit a ticket or anything else, so you can take note of how "outraged" I am about an issue. The reason I am posting now is because it has become a huge issue on the forums so this is where I feel like I need to express my opinions.

But enough about this for me. As I said in another thread, I voluntarily moved my D1 team far more than 1000 miles away from my D2 team, a move that I took the initiative to make to avoid getting told on by people who want to act like junior high hall monitors.

You can be emy1013 the liar or emy1013 the cheater. Liar if you really didn't send tickets to WIS when the change took effect, or cheater if you decided you didn't want to follow the rules. Actually you're a cheater either way.

I pay the same amount as everyone else for my teams (minus account credits) and I want to be on equal footing as everyone else.

For you Stine, I'll be anything you want me to be sweetie (big kisses).

Posted by dacj501 on 5/25/2013 7:51:00 AM (view original):I too believe in enforcing the rule, and I, like kujayhawk, remember that older thread and I was surprised and appalled that ow signed that kid with his D 1 team away from a conference mate of his D 2 team. That said hughesjr, I feel compelled to dispute something you've just posted.

1 Definition of CHEAT (from Merrim-Webster):

to violate rules dishonestly

-----------------------------------------

I am saying that if there are rules, and if one does not follow the rules, then that (by itself, with no other action) is ... by definition, cheating.

According to the definition that you yourself lead with, one not following the rules is not (by itself, with no other action) cheating, as your definition clearly states that cheating is violating rules dishonestly. The mere act of breaking the rule is not, itself, enough if I read correctly, without establishing dishonesty...

Straight from the webster's website -

transitive verb

1

: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud

2

: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice

3

: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat death>

intransitive verb

1

a: to practice fraud or trickery b: to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>

2

: to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on <wascheating on his wife>

3

: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area <the shortstop was cheating toward second base>

Thought maybe someone should post the entire definition and not hughes' version.

Is it not dishonest to own two teams within 1000 miles and pretend that you aren't? One agrees to the fair play guidelines, then takes two teams within 1000 miles. Is it not dishonest to purposefully violate the rules. Is it not defrauding other customers (and deceitful) when you gain advantage buy taking two teams within 1000 miles.

And is my example not one of an advantage to someone, even if trying in every way not to actually cheat, but still being collusive between the 2 teams?

Who's pretending? billyg lost his team because he made no pretense. I expect oldwarrior did too

That's what these guys can't seem to get through their heads. The coaches who have no qualms about announcing what their alternate ID's are, are the ones who are LEAST likely to cheat. Why? Because it's easy for the hall monitors to check up on them. By announcing their alternate ID's, they are, in essence, laying all their cards on the table for everyone to see. The coaches that HIDE their alternate ID's, those are the ones to worry about because those are the guys who are more likely to use that second ID for nefarious purposes. It's not that difficult to comprehend....or maybe it is.

Posted by isack24 on 5/25/2013 11:00:00 AM (view original):"Is it not dishonest to own two teams within 1000 miles and pretend that you aren't? One agrees to the fair play guidelines, then takes two teams within 1000 miles. Is it not dishonest to purposefully violate the rules. Is it not defrauding other customers (and deceitful) when you gain advantage buy taking two teams within 1000 miles."

So many assumptions...

The problem with this quote is the part about "then takes two teams within 1000 miles". The scenarios that many people have brought up involve coaches that ALREADY HAD teams within 1000 miles. So how is that being dishonest when the rules in place when they initially picked up both teams allowed for that?

For the first 7 years I played HD, it was okay to have two teams within 1000 miles of each other. Coaches that did were within the rules, therefore they were "honest". Within the last year the rule changed arbitrarily, so now all those coaches who were "honest" for those 7 years are now somehow "dishonest"?

the problem is making a rule that forces honest and very successful players to drop a team (or multiple teams) - OW/Iguana had those teams before the rule was in place. The rule is fairly arbitrary. Now for a game that NEEDS to keep its involved / good users, they just lost one of the best coaches in the game due to unbendable enforcement of a new rule.

OW/Iguana is a class act. Just about everyone who competed against him will miss him.

Posted by dacj501 on 5/25/2013 7:51:00 AM (view original):I too believe in enforcing the rule, and I, like kujayhawk, remember that older thread and I was surprised and appalled that ow signed that kid with his D 1 team away from a conference mate of his D 2 team. That said hughesjr, I feel compelled to dispute something you've just posted.

1 Definition of CHEAT (from Merrim-Webster):

to violate rules dishonestly

-----------------------------------------

I am saying that if there are rules, and if one does not follow the rules, then that (by itself, with no other action) is ... by definition, cheating.

According to the definition that you yourself lead with, one not following the rules is not (by itself, with no other action) cheating, as your definition clearly states that cheating is violating rules dishonestly. The mere act of breaking the rule is not, itself, enough if I read correctly, without establishing dishonesty...

Straight from the webster's website -

transitive verb

1

: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud

2

: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice

3

: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat death>

intransitive verb

1

a: to practice fraud or trickery b: to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>

2

: to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on <wascheating on his wife>

3

: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area <the shortstop was cheating toward second base>

Thought maybe someone should post the entire definition and not hughes' version.

Is it not dishonest to own two teams within 1000 miles and pretend that you aren't? One agrees to the fair play guidelines, then takes two teams within 1000 miles. Is it not dishonest to purposefully violate the rules. Is it not defrauding other customers (and deceitful) when you gain advantage buy taking two teams within 1000 miles.

And is my example not one of an advantage to someone, even if trying in every way not to actually cheat, but still being collusive between the 2 teams?

Who's pretending? billyg lost his team because he made no pretense. I expect oldwarrior did too

beat me to it, im really not sure i could make it clearer without routinely starting threads going HEY I HAVE MULTIPLE TEAMS!!! ive had two teams within 1000 miles since i picked up my second team, never hid the fact, and nobody ever had a problem with it. actually, on the contrary, most of us got excited when someone established in another part of a world, went and picked up a second ID and joined our conference in a lower division (or something similar). it was great! we had another coach, and not just a random coach, an active, successful coach we were generally already familiar with. ive been thrilled double digit times to have a coach join my conference on an alternate ID - its really hard to pull people from their dynasty, but i spent years recruiting certain folks to join certain conferences on alts. im sure im an extreme case, but by no means an exception. how things went from that, to this, is beyond me. actually, i guess its not, its that damn simple minded 5% who SOMEHOW cant (or dont want to) see shades of grey. again. just like always. isnt it bad enough you people screwed up everything else in this country? cant you leave this stupid for-fun game alone already??

if you can actually get someone from a quality conference (the kind people generally join on 2nd IDs) of one of these guys with multiple teams, to stand up and say, i dont want them there! ill probably give up the argument. but the reality is, the people in the actual conferences, the guys who would most directly be affected (and its not even close), WANT these guys there. so whats the beef? even when issues have come up with multiple teams, you routinely see the guys in conference say, man that sucks, id MUCH MUCH rather have respected coach X than sim AI. its *not even close*. wake up people. you are living in a fantasy world within a simulated world!!

I think it's funny. Everyone is pointing out that thread about OW taking one of barret's recruits as proof of the need for the rule. Take a look at who called OW out. I'll save you the time; it was me. I thought that was a bullshit move and I still do. But I never wanted OW to leave Allen or give up one of his teams. Ask the majority of people in the conferences who play with these people, and you'll get the same response. I think the response was close to unanimous: none of us wanted anadeau or OW to leave despite having D1 teams under 1,000 miles.

Posted by emy1013 on 5/25/2013 12:26:00 PM (view original):That's what these guys can't seem to get through their heads. The coaches who have no qualms about announcing what their alternate ID's are, are the ones who are LEAST likely to cheat. Why? Because it's easy for the hall monitors to check up on them. By announcing their alternate ID's, they are, in essence, laying all their cards on the table for everyone to see. The coaches that HIDE their alternate ID's, those are the ones to worry about because those are the guys who are more likely to use that second ID for nefarious purposes. It's not that difficult to comprehend....or maybe it is.

Emy the cheater, I never said the 1000 mile rule was some amazing decision that will totally stamp out cheating. One person could have teams in Washington, California, Texas, Florida, Maine, and Minnesota and not violate the 1000 mile rule. I would like a more restrictive rule.

What puzzles me is your holier-than-thou attitude that has you believe the rules don't apply to you. If you think there should be a grandfather clause, you should have taken it up with seble when the fair play guidelines were updated. If WIS said they weren't going to budge on it, you should have moved. Instead you decided to knowingly violate the rule for a year.